I recently read the SUPERMAN: RED SON tpb by Mark Millar. I know he’s not thought very highly of by some of you old school fans but you have to trust me, this thing kicks major buttocks. It’s an elseworlds tale that has Superman being raised in Russia during the Cold War. Under any other writer, this could have been just some dopey what if story with Superman has an evil dictator, but it’s much more than that. Even as a dedicated communist Superman is still a good guy. And Lex Luthor is an American scientist who is hired by President Eisenhower to find a way to stop Superman. The coolest thing about this book is the portrayal of Lex. He’s the smartest man in the world as well as being completely amoral. When he first shows up in the series he’s seen playing 14 simultaneous games of chess while reading Machiavelli’s The Prince & listening to a tape of how to speak Urdu (on a tape recorder that he built that morning). When FBI agent Jimmy Olsen visits Lex to complain about all of the money he’s spending Lex quickly scribbles something on a notepad & hands it to Jimmy saying he just balanced the federal budget.
That’s exactly how Lex should be, a cross between the post-crisis businessman & the pre-crisis mad scientist.

I’ve read several interviews with Mark Millar & he’s made it clear that his ultimate goal in life is to write Superman. Red Son proves to me that he “gets” him, & I’d love to see him take over one of the mainstream titles. I heard that he wrote some issues of SUPERMAN ADVENTURES a few years ago, so I went to a store & bought all of the ones Millar worked on (#16, 19, 22-31, 33-38, 41 & 52). I’m telling you guys, this was some great stuff. If you like Supes I urge you to check these issues out. It’s the best run
on a Superman book since, well, since you know who took over in ’86. Seriously, you won’t believe it’s the same guy who wrote The Authority or The Ultimates. It’s all mostly self-contained single-issue stories (with a couple of 2-parters) & each one tells you everything you need to know about Superman. Lois, Jimmy, & Perry are there, as is Lex. Mr. Myxyzptlk appears several times, & in each appearance it’s made clear who he is even if you didn’t read the previous issues he appeared in. The same goes for a villain called Multi-Face, who first shows up in #19. When he shows up again in #37 you don’t need to have read #19 in order to enjoy #37, although naturally it’s extra good if you have read the first issue. The best issue IMO is #41. It’s called “22 Stories In A
Single Bound.” The issue is made-up of 22 one-page stories! Now THAT’S creative!

But the question I have for y’all comes from #52. Supergirl comes down with some virus that Kryptonian females get when they reach a certain age. Unfortunately Krypton blew up before Kara had been vaccinated against it. She falls into a coma & is dying. Superman’s computers in the Fortress of Solitude give him the ingredients for the antidote, but there’s one particular element that is unknown on Earth. S.T.A.R. Labs can’t figure it out, so Superman reluctantly asks Luthor for help. Lex creates the cure, but then says he’ll only use it on Supergirl under one condition: first Superman has to expose himself to kryptonite. After he’s dead, Lex will cure Kara. Superman agrees to do it. I won’t spoil the ending in case some of y’all do plan to read it,
but as you can probably guess, Superman doesn’t end up dying, but the point is that he was perfectly willing to do so.

Objectivism seems to be pretty self-centered (that’s not a judgment call, just an observation) so I’d gather that a true objectivist wouldn’t be likely to trade his life for someone elses. But in this case I’d say Superman wasn’t being selfish enough.
It’s one thing to risk your life for someone else (which is something I’d imagine objectivism is against) because in that case there’s a chance you’ll survive. But to knowingly end your life so that someone else will live? Yes, Superman is a hero,
the greatest hero of them all, so he’s much better than all of us. But that’s sort of the point here. Think of all of the good things he has done, & could do in the future. By purposely ending his life, who knows how many lives he won’t be around to save? True, Supergirl has powers too & COULD very well grow up to be as great a superhero as he is, but there’s no guarantee that is what will happen. She could become a total screw up. Superman is already a proven effective superhero who means a lot to the world.

So that’s my question: From an objectivist point of view, what do you think Superman should have done? Should he kill himself to save Kara, or let her die
because his own life is more valuable?

I propose that Superman's first responsibility, from an Objectivist viewpoint, would be his own self-interest: health, happiness and reason (accuracy).

Sacrificing himself -- no chance of survival -- would be unethical. His sentimental attachment to his cousin would be no excuse for self-sacrifice.

If what I've said is accurate, then there seems to be a great contradiction between Objectivist ethics and romantic "heroism." Have we argued this, oh board?

I believe an ethical person, in pursuit of his or her own interests, is free pursue Truth, Justice and Liberty for all. "I find Truth, Justice and Liberty for all to be among my own interests; I may pursue it because it profits me." Free-market economics supports this idea; when the whole population enjoys justice and freedom, the whole economic system grows more competitive, and therefore more wealthy -- developing new and better ways to profit from resources.

Is it ethical for Superman to do ANYTHING to save his cousin's life? I think it might be, if he reasonably believed it would profit him, and as long as he acted freely not out of obligation. But I cannot see how his sacrifice of his own life could be called ethical from an Objectivist standpoint.

Discuss, if you like.

I'm off to find Objectivist opinions regarding "suicide" as a statement of personal sovereignty (not to be confused with "sacrifice," which implies another goal).

Before we proceed to examine Objectivist ethics, let us assume we're examining people sound in mind and body -- organically capable of making rational decisions and physiologically able to survive. That is, let us not fly off into ethical questions about people neurologically incapable of making rational decisions nor people dying of cancer.

Is it ethical to sacrifice oneself if it is otherwise impossible to imagine a happy life?

Perhaps Superman thought, "I could never be happy if I failed to do something -- anything -- in my power to save Supergirl. If she dies, I will be miserable forever. I will sacrifice myself not out of altruism but to make the best out of a no-win circumstance."

Is that psychologically realistic? Some of us have seen painful events in our own lives, seen losses that certainly seemed to guarantee we never live another happy moment, ever. Yet we persist, and we profit. Does anyone ever have no realistic hope of any happiness ever again?

Or might Superman have thought,"My life is my own. I am free to give my life as I choose. I may ethically sacrifice myself to save Supergirl if I choose; I do so freely, not out of any obligation, and such is my right."

Is that an ethical decision, from an Objectivist viewpoint?

A matter I do not find relevant is the question whose survival would be more "profitable" -- Superman's or Supergirl's. A dead man cannot profit.

This begs the question whether I believe any kind of heroism may be ethical, from an Objectivist viewpoint. I do. But I find myself quibbling when I try to explain it.

So, since I live in fear of Bob showing everyone that I'm full of shit, I'll just shut up.

So, since I live in fear of Bob showing everyone that I'm full of shit, I'll just shut up.

Lighten up, amigo.

I think everything above is great grounds for discussion, and thought provoking enough that I'm still kicking it ariound in my own head.

~Bob

I meant that in a "light" way, Bob. You never said I was full of shit yet, anyway. I just overheard you tell someone else he was, and it put the fear of Bob in me.

I agree, JR's question does imply some contrasts between Objectivist ethics and most comic-book heroics.

Bob, you're suggestion elsewhere that The Spectre would be a good Objectivist hero seemed jokey at first, but I see your point. Any rational, ethical, omniscient character would have to be Objectivist.

It leads me back to Superman. Would human Objectivist principles apply to him, per se?

The dude has no practical needs, right? A lil sunlight, mebbe. If he wants to build a skyscraper, he digs up some ore and builds one. If he wants the trains to run on time, he just flies around and puts them where they're supposed to be. Whatever he wants, he gets.

But then there's love. The supermagoo still loves Lois, and his fam, and his adopted homeworld.

Maybe Clark loves humanity -- loves their free competition, and their will to keep on keeping on, to reach the unreachable star. He devotes himself to the protection of truth, justice and the American way IN ORDER TO PRESERVE competition between them.

In other words, superpowers prevent Superman from competing among mere mortals fairly. It upsets the Objectivist model. Superman should be out competing with Kronas and Monguls and Eradicators, not humans. Yet he LOVES humans, and preserves their freedom to compete and achieve because he finds it beautiful and fascinating. That's why he's a reporter -- because he loves to discover the beauty of humanity through investigation.

Hm?

Clark also loves being a reporter because his writing puts him on a level playing field with humanity. His powers can't help him be a good writer; he's had to learn that.

>> From an objectivist point of view, what do you think Superman should have done? <<

Force the cure out of Luthor by any means necessary, including killing him. Superman doesn't behave this way, though.

Whaddya know, maybe I'm more of an objectivist than I thought, because that's what I would do! Unfortunately, Luthor would no doubt consider it a victory that he had provoked Superman sufficiently to make him behave that way. I guess that's why he's Superman, and I'm not.

The objectivist hero doesn't see morality in the way most mainstream superheroes do. Superman had a stated "code against killing", and most of the other heroes had similar (but mostly unspoken) stances. Contrast this outlook with Mr A's. Mr A considers an evil person to have forfeited his right to being treated with mercy, morality or "humanity". Mr A lets criminals meet their demises even when he can easily prevent it. Faced with a situation like this one, the objectivist hero would not make deals with an evil man, and would not even be bound to his own word. He'd extract the cure from Luthor by any means necessary, including deceit, including killing Luthor if it came to that.

In the aftermath of such an event, the silver age Superman would have removed his own powers forever with Gold Kryptonite. The post-Crisis Superman was traumatised by his decision to execute the Pocket Universe Kryptonian criminals, battled psychological problems, then finally exiled himself into space for a while. Mr A would simply say that Luthor's evil ways had brought about his own destruction, and that was that.

(Edit ~ "Kryptonian" not "Kryptonite".)

Superman would have made some VERY different decisions in this series of panels:

Superman has the "luxury" of not having to make the same choices we do. Because of his powers, it is far easier for him to take the moral "high ground." He can say "there are always alternatives" only because his abilities give him otpions which we could never even consider.

Linda is right.

Not only that, her point is illustrated .

If I were Superman, I would have grabbed Lex, flew up into the sky, held him upside down by his feet & fixed my heat vision right on his balls. Starting with a low warm glaze I then would've said "Listen, I 'm not playing games anymore you bald son of a b*tch, give me that cure or kiss your boys goodbye!" And then just start slowly increasing the heat until Lex squealed.

I cannot imagine Mr.A fixating on his opponent's testicles with quite the same passion.

Maybe it just depends on who's testicles he was fixating on.

This sounds silly, but I think it's relevant.

Using violence on Lex to drag a solution out of him would be ethical, I think, according to Rand. Lex would have been the initiator of the "violence" against Supergirl; Superman would be ethically free to use reasonable force against him in order to stop the threat to kill her (or about to kill Superman, ultimately).

Would "reasonable force" include grilling Lex's nuts? Or would that choice of force not be obviously emotional?

It would be emotional for Lex, I suppose.

Dropping Lex from a cloud in order to scare him into freeing Supergirl seems ethical for an Objectivist Superman, ethically equivalent to shooting a sniper to prevent him from murdering an innocent. But as for roasting his eggs... It seems un-Objectivist to add that specifically psychological dimension to the threat -- of attacking his balls when threatening his life is plenty.

I can't imagine Mr.A using emotional psychology like that when a plain show of force is enough. It seems kinda beneath an Objectivist Superman, a compromise of strict rationalism.

Linda, I'm especially curious what you think.

The book in which Superman burns Lex's baldies might indeed sell better than a more perfectly rational Objectivist Superman...

Reminds me of a certain current and much discussed film, which uses extreme violence to put asses in seats. The audience gets a hot-blooded thrill out of the cruelty. Regardless of whether the depiction is valid (ethical to scorch 'em, in our hypothetical story; historically accurate to show the violence, in the other), doesn't the audience's blood-thrill contradict the philosophical premise of the story?

<< edited to let some of the gas out of my own very gassy bag >>

A rational response, in the Objectivist sense, isn't necessarily "rational" in the way the word is used in everyday language. Rational in this case means "the most logical response to a situation". If behaving *ir*rationally is the only way to achieve a just goal against an evil opponent, then that's what you do. Ditko has no trouble giving some of his heroes wild, irrational public personas when it's important to their ability to intimidate criminals. Jack Ryder, for example, is a great big emoting ham when in his superhero identity, yet his goals are more or less objectivist in nature.

If the only way to extract the info from the comic book Luthor was to do what our Luthor suggests, then the objectivist hero would do it, dramatics and all.

Thing is, in Superman's case, I can think of several other ways to achieve the same aim and I'm sure you could too. So I doubt that an objectivist hero with Superman's powers would have to resort to this kind of psychological terror, and if given a choice of effective responses, it's unlikely he'd choose this one.

I agree that Mr Dare's story would sell!!

You are absolutely right about the Creeper (and Static and The Missing Man and The Question, and other great Ditko characters) using theatrics to confuse and disorient their opponents. By doing so, I guess the costumed hero allows the villain to fall victim to their own emotional weakness, their own vulnerability to emotional impression. In a way, it's comparable to Mr.A allowing criminals to die as a consequence of their own foolishness or violence.

They're a cowardly as superstitious lot, those criminals. Or so I have read, somewhere.

You're right!

So how come I remain uncomfortable with the idea of an Objectivist Superman sparking up Lex's pills?

Am I simply defensive of testicles in general, perhaps a generalization of concern for my own?

Does it seem inappropriate to feature those particular organs as a target because I associate Superman with an all-ages audience?

Am I embarrassed to think OBJECTIVIST SUPERMAN, off the top of his head, would think of roasting testicles as the best way to make an impression? Doesn't it imply OBJECTIVIST SUPERMAN might be kinda hung up on testicles in general, or his own in particular?

Okay okay, I've driven the topic into absurdity.

It's all a euphemism for that other story anyway, so I'll stop awready.

Jesus, I wasn't trying to start a whole testicular arguement here. When I first read the topic of this thread I had the same opinion as most of you guys, which is that Superman should just force the cure out of Lex. But Lex just insn't afraid of anybody. Check LEX 2000 where he stared down Batman. So if Supes did threaten Lex he would just laugh in his face because he'd be sure Supes was bluffing, so Superman would have to actually get physically with Lex. Sure, he could do something standard, like start breaking his fingers one at a time, but even then I bet Lex would hold out because he wouldn't believe Supes would go too far. So I think Superman would need to really get midevil on LL to put the fear of God into him. That's why I also suggested that he hold Lex upside down in the sky first, to really disorient him. THEN you start slowly burning his balls. I do think that would work, and Lex would probably never bother Superman again after that.

First, let me just say that I love the way Linda referred to me as "our Luthor" in a previous post.

Second, this is basically off-topic, but it's kind of relevant as it deals with the question of how far superheroes should go. I saw this on Millarworld & it just cracked me up. It's Grant Morrison on Batman:

********
It occurs to me that an awful lot of trouble in Gotham City could have been averted a long time ago if Batman had just ripped the Joker's nipples off.

I mean, treatment doesn't work, does it? They stick the Joker in the nuthatch, he comes out again and does the same things.

A man with the nipples ripped off him does not make the same mistakes twice.

Criminals are a superstitious, cowardly lot, and need the nipples ripped off them.

I mean, who's going to argue?

"Batman, I've heard disturbing reports that you ripped the Joker's nipples off."

"Choke on my fuck, Commissioner Gordon."

"...okay."

I mean, crime in Gotham City doesn't exactly seem to be affected by a man dressed as a bat flapping around the place. But no-one disobeys a man wearing a necklace of human nipples.

"I'm Batman" isn't cutting it in the striking-fear-into-their-hearts stakes. But "I'm Batman -- and I'm here for your nipples" is an entirely different proposition.

Criminals would see the error of their ways after a man in a black leather pervert suit had their nipples off with the edge of a Batarang, you mark my words. Or a Bat-Denipplizer.

I'm off to ring DC Comics.

This discussion, while interesting, brings out a whole different window. That is, these are terrific examples of why certain heroes are created the way they are. If the Question, or Mr. A had Superman's abilities, you'd be forced, at some point, to examine Watchmen or MiracleMan. To prevent that, certain watergates are kept, so that those issues aren't brought to a head. With Superman, Captain Atom, etc, they are built with those balances installed, so that we may never really get the answers to those questions of "What if...?"
To illustrate, how many thought that Daredevil (from the movie) would've EVER let "Joe Quesada" die on the subway's tracks, IN the comics? Probably not that many. Taking away certain checks and balances within our heroes makes for wonky reading, usually; flirting with it is okay, hence Elseworlds, etc. But it leads to MiracleMan: The Golden Age or something along those lines; a finite story...


DADDIO

Of course, Dad, anyone who knew Matt Murdock hated the death of Quesada in that movie. I sat there hoping it would turn out to be a nightmare sequence, and Matt would wake feeling tragically guilty for even dreaming it.

"Watergate?" Cool, I've never heard the term used that way! Synonym for "floodgate"? I've only ever heard the term used in reference to the DC hotel, the scandal there, and the Ambrosia salad clone.

Well, this generated some interesting responses.

Okay, first of all, from my understanding, objectivism would accept the idea of
an individual freely choosing to commit suicide. Objectivism seems to be about
living your life in the way that is best for you. And in some cases, death may seem
like a more reasonable option. Like say you have some fatal disease or you’ve just
been sentenced to life in prison w/out the possibility of parole. I’d rather be dead.

Anyway, regarding Superman: Mark Millar wrote a story for Superman Adventures
#25 that sort of deals with this. LB might want to track down this particular issue since
Batgirl (Barbara Gordon) is on the cover & is featured prominently in the story.
It opens with The Mad Hatter holding Bruce Wayne bound & gagged on live TV.
He’s threatening to kill Wayne unless Batman shows up & unmasks himself on TV.
Superman flies to Gotham to help & bursts into a warehouse just as Batgirl is fighting
some of the Hatter’s henchmen. Suddenly the crooks aren’t scared anymore. See, they
were scared of Batgirl, but they knew Superman won’t hurt them so now they have no reason to talk. Batgirl complains that Superman has to act differently if he expects to be effective in Gotham. So a later scene has Superman grab one of the thugs & fly him up into the air & hold him in front of an approaching airplane until he tells Superman where the Hatter is. The guy panics & talks of course & the next scene has Superman flying to
the hideout with Batgirl on his back:

SUPERMAN: That felt awful.

BATGIRL: Word of advice, Superman. Next time you lean on a snitch, don’t buy him
a cup of coffee afterwards, it’s too weird.

But as “our Luthor” pointed out, this sort of thing wouldn’t work on Lex Luthor, because
Lex knows Superman too well, & would know he wouldn’t go through with it. So Superman would have to physically injure Lex in. But as some of y’all have
pointed out, that just ain’t his way. Unlike my suggestion of Green Lantern, turning
Superman into an objectivist would basically destroy the very essence of what Superman is. Yes, I know Superman was much tougher in the beginning, & even killed people, but
he was a lot less powerful then. As Kevin pointed out, the very nature of Superman’s abilities gives him options that us mere mortals can never really understand. I remember
on “that other board” there was once a thread about should Batman kill. Old
what’s-his-name posted a response like “Only if he absolutely has to. Of course, being
Batman, 99.99999999999999999% of the time he would find some other solution (I’m
paraphrasing). Well, in Superman’s case you can add about 10 more 9’s to that percentage, because he’s friggin’ SUPERMAN!

See, for me, the key to Superman is that he’s an alien, & he knows that but he likes to think of himself as human. He wants to be accepted by us. That’s why he does what he
does & why he holds himself to these impossibly high standards. He knows that the
respect & adoration that he receives from humanity could very easily turn fear & hatred.
If this Godlike being started acting like the Punisher, people would be totally freakin’
out.

Plus, Daddio was absolutely right. If Superman were to begin acting that way, then
the next “logical” step for him would be to take over the world, ala Miracleman &
Watchmen (both great series btw) & that would essentially end the story. And who wants that?

I will confess, while I like the moral stance of Superman, sometimes the writers take it
too far. Sure, he wouldn’t kill Lex Luthor or bank robbers, or even Al Queda members,
in each case he would simply stop them & then turn them over to the proper authorities,
but sometimes, the magnitude of the threats he faces really strain that moral stance IMO.
LB mentioned the post-crises Superman & gold kryptonite. This was done in Alan Moore’s brilliant story “Whatever Happened To The Man Of Tommorrow?” Superman
kills Mr. Mxyzptlk & then feels so guilty that he uses gold k to remove his powers.
Excuse me? Mxy had just revealed himself as omnipotent other-dimensional being who
was now bent on evil & destruction, what is Superman feeling guilty for? Or in the
recent “Our World’s At War” storyline where the DC heroes faces Galactus (oops, I mean Imperiex). This is a being who’s trying to destroy THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE. And
Superman is conflicted about killing him. Oh come on.

And when old what’s-his-name had Superman execute those 3 Phantom Zone villains I
thought he handled it well. This was clearly not something Superman enjoyed doing,
but those 3 had murdered over 5 BILLION people. Hitler & Osama might as well be
pickpockets compared to those guys. And Superman was the last representative of any
type of law on that planet. Now, I’m against the death penalty too (& no I don’t want to
debate that so don’t even start with me) but in that particular circumstance I would’ve done the exact same thing. And I can buy that Superman would feel a little bad about doing that, but having him feel so guilty that he would become schizophrenic just seemed to be taking it too far IMO.

Sometimes cops have to kill in the line of duty. They don’t like it, but most of them
deal with it & move on. And I believe so would Superman.

Anyway, the torture solution wouldn’t have worked in this case, & I’ll explain why in
my next post. So if you don’t want the story of Superman Adventures #52 spoiled for
you, then skip it.

This post reveals the ending to the story in Superman
Adventures #52, so read no further if you haven't read it & plan to track it down.

5

4

3

2

1
So like I said, Superman agrees to Luthor’s conditions. Before he goes to the jail where
Metallo is being held, so he can expose himself to Metallo’s kryptonite heart, he stops
by S.T.A.R. Labs to say goodbye to Supergirl, who is still comatose. As he bends down to kiss her on the cheek, a tear drops from his eye & hits the one of the wires they have hooked up to her. The computer immediately announces “Element X identified!”
It’s turns out that the unknown element (kryptonian salt) can be found in Superman’s tears, so the S.T.A.R. Labs guys quickly use it to finish the cure & save Supergirl.

Later, Lex sees Supergirl flying past the LexCorp tower & he starts screaming. His
aid Mercy asks him what’s wrong. It turns out that Lex was lying. He honestly tried
to discover the cure for Supergirl, but he failed, so at least he figured he could get
still get rid of Superman. But seeing Supergirl healthy again means, as far as Lex
knows, that Superman must have discovered the cure himself. Superman succeeded
where Lex Luthor failed. As Lex says to himself: “Superman has beaten me
INTELLECTUALLY.” Which is something he never believed was possible. The issue
ends with Lex sitting at his desk just looking totally devastated.

Like I said, Mark Millar was born to write Superman.

JR wrote: “…from my understanding, objectivism would accept the idea of
an individual freely choosing to commit suicide. Objectivism seems to be about
living your life in the way that is best for you. And in some cases, death may seem
like a more reasonable option.”
___________________________________________

Oh, that’s a grave abbreviation, JR. The responsibility of "man qua man" is to pursue his own survival and happiness. That’s the whole foundation of morality. A person is free to commit suicide the way one is free to murder an innocent person; you can do it, but it’s not a moral act.

Suicide doesn’t violate the rights of another person, yet it can’t be called a "moral act" in an Objectivist vocabulary. (Argue with me.)

Also, Objectivism dismisses what "seems like a reasonable option," in preference of what are actual reasonable options.
_______________________________

JR wrote; “[Superman] wouldn’t kill Lex Luthor or bank robbers, or even Al Queda members,
in each case he would simply stop them & then turn them over to the proper authorities,
but sometimes, the magnitude of the threats he faces really strain that moral stance.”
_________________________________

I think Superman must always show perfect heroic justness. He is “the one who pursues perfect heroic justness even when it strains credulity.” And by “heroic justness” I refer to the definition laid out by the expert, who suggested a hero is someone who does the right thing for the right reason, in pursuit of no personal gain, when it would be easier just to do nothing.

Superman must always have the option not to act heroically, yet (in any successful Superman story) he must act heroically anyway. Versus a villain who knows this about Superman, conflicts will arise where Superman finds himself paradoxically unable to act.

(I think no such conflict is possible for an Objectivist hero. An Objectivist hero is always able to act, by pursuing his own best interest.)

It is hard to make a Superman who conforms to Objectivism. Dude is neither real nor human. Dude has godlike power, which exempts him from natural human competition; he’s out of our class; he’s on a different scale, where the terms of competition and “pursuit of happiness” do not apply in a human way.

<< edited "YOUR NAME" box in order to drope my cloak of anonymity. Guess who! >>

Well, I don’t want to argue with you, Anonymous, as I don’t profess
to be any sort of expert in all of the finer points of objectivism. But
from what I have read it doesn’t seem to be that suicide would be
considered wrong, certainly not “immoral.” From a religious viewpoint
I understand that suicide is wrong, but since objectivism seems to
focus more on rationality, as opposed to faith, it does seem to me that
the same rules apply here.

Like you said, murder would be considered wrong because it infringes
upon the rights of another, but suicide only affects yourself* so if you
rationally decide that you’re no longer interested in continuing to live,
for whatever reason, then you would be justified to end your own life.

*Yes, I know technically that it might affect others, such as loved ones
who mourn you when you’re dead, but that wouldn’t be YOUR problem,
would it?

The reason I brought the Superman question up, is because I believe that
objectivism would not support actively giving up your life for another, because
that seems to be the antithesis of doing what’s best for YOU. At least that’s
how I see it. But I could be wrong.

In any case, I do agree that I admire Superman’s moral stance against killing.
That’s why I brought up those examples. I would probably kill Osama bin
Laden if I had the opportunity, & so would many others, but Superman
wouldn’t. That’s because he’s BETTER than us. That’s a fact that many
current comic fans can’t seem to comprehend because they consider that
“unrealistic.”

I think realism was pretty much thrown out the window with “Rocketed from
the doomed planet Krypton…” so why have a problem with his code against
killing? I still think it’s a little different when he’s dealing with a omnipotent
galactic being that’s out to destroy the universe, but maybe that’s just me.
But I do agree that Superman & objectivism simply don’t mix.